Images that display in IE, but not in Picture-and-fax viewer (nor FireFox)

Hello all,

I've got some (old) JPG and GIF images here that display in IE, but not in
picture-and-fax viewer (nor FireFox. The FreeImage DLL refuses them too).

What is causing it, and what can I change (to the image) to fix it (other
than trying to pull them thru some image convertor) ?

Or, said otherwise: What is different to such JPG and GIF images that allows
them to display on IE, but not on/in three other programs (ok, two and a DLL
:-) )

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

On Tuesday, December 18, 2018 at 9:01:47 AM UTC-8, R.Wieser wrote:
Hello all,

I've got some (old) JPG and GIF images here that display in IE, but not in
picture-and-fax viewer (nor FireFox. The FreeImage DLL refuses them too).

What is causing it, and what can I change (to the image) to fix it (other
than trying to pull them thru some image convertor) ?

Or, said otherwise: What is different to such JPG and GIF images that allows
them to display on IE, but not on/in three other programs (ok, two and a DLL
:-) )

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

Will loading them into MSPaint and re-saving them make them work?

James,

Will loading them into MSPaint and re-saving them make
them work?

Alas: "Paint cannot read this file". IE stil displays it just fine though
(too bad I can't re-save it from there ...).

It looks like IE uses an image-handling library different from what Paint
(and picture and fax viewer) do.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

In message , R.Wieser
writes:
James,

Will loading them into MSPaint and re-saving them make
them work?

(Can XP's version of paint handle other than .bmp?)

Alas: "Paint cannot read this file". IE stil displays it just fine though
(too bad I can't re-save it from there ...).

Screenshot - or is it bigger than the window?

It looks like IE uses an image-handling library different from what Paint
(and picture and fax viewer) do.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

I'd strongly recommend IrfanView - even the current version (4.52) still
supports XP. (Get the 32-bit version, of course - and the associated
plugin set.)

https://www.irfanview.info/files/iview452_setup.exe and
https://www.fosshub.com/IrfanView.ht...gins_setup.exe . It's
quite tolerant of corrupted JPEGs, should allow saves if it can load
them, and will give quite a lot of information (the EXIF, any comments
[in the JPEGs], number of colours, assorted dates, ...). But mainly,
it's a very good (IMO) viewer - and even editor. (And the basic file
above is still well under 3 MB!)
JPG
===


How about a three-way referendum, allowing second choices?
--
Are petitions unfair? See 255soft.uk (YOUR VOTE COUNTS)! [Pass it on.]
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Well I wish you'd just tell me, rather than trying to engage my enthusiasm,
because I haven't got one. (Marvin; first series, fit the fifth.)

On 12/18/2018 12:01 PM, R.Wieser wrote:
Hello all,

I've got some (old) JPG and GIF images here that display in IE, but not in
picture-and-fax viewer (nor FireFox. The FreeImage DLL refuses them too).

What is causing it, and what can I change (to the image) to fix it (other
than trying to pull them thru some image convertor) ?

Or, said otherwise: What is different to such JPG and GIF images that allows
them to display on IE, but not on/in three other programs (ok, two and a DLL
:-) )

Regards,
Rudy Wieser



Rudy:

Were the images generated via a scanner?

I once had some B&W photographs I scanned and chose a number of shades of gray
greater than 256. Tried to load them onto a photo frame display and they would
not display but the color scans would. That tipped me to what was going on.

Perhaps your problem is similar.

HTH & GL

--

John,

I once had some B&W photographs I scanned and chose a number of shades of
gray greater than 256. Tried to load them onto a photo frame display and
they would not display but the color scans would. That tipped me to what
was going on.

I can't say what the difference exactly is. As mentioned, I've got some GIF
but also JPG images that are rejected by several programs but IE. Some of
them are B/W, others are color.

As for your situation, I cannot quite imagine what was causing it. A
limitation of the viewer to 256 color/grayshades perhaps ? But than why
didn't it replace some nearby grayshades to a single one ... Even my
thanwhile (DOS era) SEA image viewer did that, even for color images
(sometimes didn't look that great, but you could view them).

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

R.Wieser wrote:
John,

I once had some B&W photographs I scanned and chose a number of shades of
gray greater than 256. Tried to load them onto a photo frame display and
they would not display but the color scans would. That tipped me to what
was going on.

I can't say what the difference exactly is. As mentioned, I've got some GIF
but also JPG images that are rejected by several programs but IE. Some of
them are B/W, others are color.

As for your situation, I cannot quite imagine what was causing it. A
limitation of the viewer to 256 color/grayshades perhaps ? But than why
didn't it replace some nearby grayshades to a single one ... Even my
thanwhile (DOS era) SEA image viewer did that, even for color images
(sometimes didn't look that great, but you could view them).

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

How did your Irfanview tests go ?

Paul

Paul,

How did your Irfanview tests go ?

With all due respect, but I already mentioned three different programs that
would not accept the images, and one that does. What more proof do you need
?

In other words what should I try IrfanView for ?

If its just about being able to view the images I can simply assign IE to
the involved extensions and be done with it (wouldn't like it though).

If you are hinting at image conversion, I've mentioned that I see such an
action as a last-ditch option (doesn't mean that I'm not already
investigating it. The build-in GdiPlus DLL shows some promiss).

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

In message , R.Wieser
writes
Paul,

How did your Irfanview tests go ?

With all due respect, but I already mentioned three different programs that
would not accept the images, and one that does. What more proof do you need
?

In other words what should I try IrfanView for ?

If its just about being able to view the images I can simply assign IE to
the involved extensions and be done with it (wouldn't like it though).

If you are hinting at image conversion, I've mentioned that I see such an
action as a last-ditch option (doesn't mean that I'm not already
investigating it. The build-in GdiPlus DLL shows some promiss).

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

Unless there's a good reason not to, what about simply sending the
images to someone else to try and open?
--
Ian

In message , R.Wieser
writes:
Paul,

How did your Irfanview tests go ?

With all due respect, but I already mentioned three different programs that
would not accept the images, and one that does. What more proof do you need
?

In other words what should I try IrfanView for ?

Apart from that it's a dedicated image viewer, and opens a LOT quicker -
and with less fuss - than IE, it also can tell you a lot _about_ the
image: colour depth (or greyscale equivalent), number of colours, and
probably other things, which I'm pretty sure IE can't. (AFAICR, IE
_might_ tell you the size in pixels, but that's all. Knowing these sorts
of things might help you work out just what it is that is unusual about
these images. (Other image viewers may do the same, but [a] you've tried
a couple that didn't, [b] IV - IMO and that of several others - is a
good one of its type [and may help with other troublesome images too; I
recently sent someone a .pcx file his viewer couldn't - can IE? - and IV
did].)

If its just about being able to view the images I can simply assign IE to
the involved extensions and be done with it (wouldn't like it though).

No, I would never think of using a browser as my default viewer for any
type of image! It would be a bit like using a DVD player to play CDs; I
don't think I've ever come across a DVD player that _can't_ play CDs,
but ... (-:

If you are hinting at image conversion, I've mentioned that I see such an
action as a last-ditch option (doesn't mean that I'm not already
investigating it. The build-in GdiPlus DLL shows some promiss).

Regards,
Rudy Wieser


--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

It's not the pace of life that concerns me, it's the sudden stop at the end.

On Wed, 19 Dec 2018 12:10:18 +0100, "R.Wieser"
wrote:

Paul,

How did your Irfanview tests go ?

With all due respect, but I already mentioned three different programs that
would not accept the images, and one that does. What more proof do you need
?

In other words what should I try IrfanView for ?

If its just about being able to view the images I can simply assign IE to
the involved extensions and be done with it (wouldn't like it though).

If you are hinting at image conversion, I've mentioned that I see such an
action as a last-ditch option (doesn't mean that I'm not already
investigating it. The build-in GdiPlus DLL shows some promiss).

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

Probably suggested it because IrfanView seems able to find incorrectly
coded images and offers to fix them. (and does)

On Tue, 18 Dec 2018 18:01:36 +0100, R.Wieser wrote:
Hello all,

I've got some (old) JPG and GIF images here that display in IE, but not in
picture-and-fax viewer (nor FireFox. The FreeImage DLL refuses them too).

What is causing it, and what can I change (to the image) to fix it (other
than trying to pull them thru some image convertor) ?

Or, said otherwise: What is different to such JPG and GIF images that allows
them to display on IE, but not on/in three other programs (ok, two and a DLL
:-) )

Chances are that the images have corrupted data either unintentional or due
to bad image encoder; or contains non standard image parameter(s). MSIE must
have a persistent image handling where it serves more like an image salvager
than a simple image decoder.

If you use an image file analysis tool which breaks down the data structure
on those image files, it should show the cause of the problem.

JJ,

Chances are that the images have corrupted data either unintentional
or due to bad image encoder

I would expect that to be rather visible, especially on JPG files and on the
ammount of images I've currently got that exhibit this problem. But they
don't. From batch of 29 images *all* seem to show perfectly (just tested to
make absolutily damn sure).

or contains non standard image parameter(s)

That was my first thought. I have no idea what such non standard
parameters look like though.

MSIE must have a persistent image handling where it serves more like
an image salvager than a simple image decoder.

Yeah, I also thought about that. But as with the first paragraph, such
salvaging should leave marks. Which there seem to be none.

If you use an image file analysis tool which breaks down the data
structure on those image files, it should show the cause of the problem.

:-) Pretty-much the reason I came he Either someone recognising this
behaviour, or knowing about how to do such analysis / where to find such an
tool. Beyond walking thru the GIF/JPG files block structure I mean. That
I've already done.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

R.Wieser wrote:

Beyond walking thru the GIF/JPG files block structure I mean. That
I've already done.

You could have pointed that out in your first post.

If you've already used a parser/validator, it already
contains the known defects information.

Paul

In message , R.Wieser
writes:
JJ,

Chances are that the images have corrupted data either unintentional
or due to bad image encoder

I would expect that to be rather visible, especially on JPG files and on the
ammount of images I've currently got that exhibit this problem. But they
don't. From batch of 29 images *all* seem to show perfectly (just tested to
make absolutily damn sure).

If the "bad" data was in the header, and IE corrects it, then there's be
nothing visible. (When JJ said "corrupted data", he I'm pretty sure was
not distinguishing between the various parts of the file, such as header
and pixel data.)

or contains non standard image parameter(s)

That was my first thought. I have no idea what such non standard
parameters look like though.

You _have_ said that you could examine the headers (-:. I took that to
mean you _do_ have knowledge - more than I do, anyway! - of the
structure of a .jpg image.

MSIE must have a persistent image handling where it serves more like
an image salvager than a simple image decoder.

Yeah, I also thought about that. But as with the first paragraph, such
salvaging should leave marks. Which there seem to be none.

See above: if the salvaging involved only header correction, it would
leave nothing visible.

If you use an image file analysis tool which breaks down the data
structure on those image files, it should show the cause of the problem.

:-) Pretty-much the reason I came he Either someone recognising this
behaviour, or knowing about how to do such analysis / where to find such an
tool. Beyond walking thru the GIF/JPG files block structure I mean. That
I've already done.

And not found anything, presumably.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser


As an aside, what sort of _size_ are these images (I mean in pixels)?
Not that I'm suggesting that has anything to do with the problem, I'm
just being curious (nosey).

As a second aside, you've I think spent enough time on this thread that
you could have recoded them by now (including installing IrfanView [and
uninstalling it]; or, using the software you've written yourself). Not
that I'm saying you should do that: I think I now do understand your
question: was it "has anyone else encountered images that view OK in IE
version ## or Fax viewer ??, but not in zzzz, and _knows why_?"
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

I'm the oldest woman on primetime not baking cakes.
- Anne Robinson, RT 2015/8/15-21